sponsorkindest said: @A Smile : there is a mismatch between screenshot and the tactic tested. The tactic tested is for right flank play but the screenshot is for left flank play Expand
I made a mistake, my lineup in the league is more suitable for mirror positions, forgot to modify.
The importance of WBA in the current tactical engine is almost irreplaceable, check the gap between WBS and it. Using the No. 1 Kane's 4231 as a template for the test. At the same time, check whether there is a difference in "Pass Into Space".
The importance of WBA in the current tactical engine is almost irreplaceable, check the gap between WBS and it. Using the No. 1 Kane's 4231 as a template for the test.
This combination of responsibilities is not in line with the characteristics of the engine, I try my best to do the best, but with the mainstream configuration is still a big gap, look at the result.
Chris said: What advice can you give me if I want to put the CF to AM? Should I change the Ap's? I'm struggling trying to get good tests with 4-3-1-2 without flanks Expand
I think this tactic relies too much on the parallel position of the three forwards, and it may collapse with a high probability to become 4312.
I made a mistake, my lineup in the league is more suitable for mirror positions, forgot to modify.
At the same time, check whether there is a difference in "Pass Into Space".
DL：WBA→WBS
AMR:IFA→IWS
DR:WBA→WBS
Strengthen the defense and see what happens.
DLPS→CMS
DMS Add "Get Further Forward"
It doesn't seem satisfactory. Let's make a comparison.
I think this tactic relies too much on the parallel position of the three forwards, and it may collapse with a high probability to become 4312.
is the CF most likely to score or the AFs?
In this structure, I think all three are similar. AF needs to pull the side to attack, CFS will also fight for the center of the attack.